Quoted message said:Six positive epo finding for Armstrong in 1999 out of 12 overall and 40+
positive findings for 1998. No one in the scientific community has
addressed the research that the Mabray lab was doing and declared the
findings to be incorrect. The research being done was itself a check and
balance on the test in use under the WADA code.
According to their own website -
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=253- the WADA came to
be on November 10, 1999, with the goal of being "fully operational" for the
Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000.
Reaching back earlier than the incorporation of the WADA for test results,
conducted under conditions which may have only coincidentally been in step
with later standards, seems a bit of a stretch.
WADA isn't doing itself any favors with this one. As I've said before,
there's evidence enough to slander, but not enough to either acquit or prove
guilt. The WADA appears to be taking on a tactic of seeking compliance
through intimidation, fear & reckless (but tolerated, so far) behaviour.
They've set the goal of "clean" (a relative term) sports back a number of
years, as they encourage endless bickering about questionable procedures
rather than unquestionable proof of drug usage.
When we think of the WADA, it should be in terms of "Dang, another stupid
athlete got caught." Instead, it's "Are these tests really that reliable,
when so-and-so was supposedly guilty until they rewrote the test due to
false positives?"
The WADA is, in effect, the highest court in the land. It should act in a
manner that creates respect, rather than questioning of motives & whether
procedures are designed to obtain expected results more so than prove guilt.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"k.papai" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Cyclingnews: What are your thoughts on the latest in the EPO
> allegations, particularly involving Lance Armstrong?
>
> E. Merckx: I cannot understand it. How can you attack somebody that
> cannot defend himself? It's not normal too... the testing [procedure.]
> If you have something, you go to the UCI or WADA - but not after five
> or six years. That is not correct. It's a bad thing for cycling.
Of course Eddy was the person who introduced Armstrong to Dr. Ferrari.
Not everyone agrees with Eddy:
"We have to respect the assumption of innocence. It's not up to the
athlete to prove he's not guilty, it is up to the sporting bodies to
prove that he is. I'm in favour of a thorough independent investigation,
accepted by all parties. The IOC wants to retro-actively have the urine
samples examined but first WADA has to determine the procedures to do
this. Only then the discussion will stop."--Jacques Rogge, IOC Chairman.
Lance Armstrong has stated that he had no objection to having his urine
stored and tested as new testing technologies were developed. Mon Dieu!
That was before his urine came up positive six times.
New technologies doesn't mean abandoning scientific checks and balances.
You argue around Armstrong's guilt purely on the basis of speculation and
your own lopsided suspicions. Get back to us when the hard evidence shows
up (seriously).
Phil H
Six positive epo finding for Armstrong in 1999 out of 12 overall and 40+
positive findings for 1998. No one in the scientific community has
addressed the research that the Mabray lab was doing and declared the
findings to be incorrect. The research being done was itself a check and
balance on the test in use under the WADA code.
There is far more than "speculation" with regard to Armstrong and the
others (seriously).
